Summary: Dr X has complained about the Council’s handling of child protection matters relating to his five children. The Council was at fault for delays in providing copies of professional reports and insufficient notice of some meetings to Dr X. The Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused to Dr X by these faults.

The complaint

1. Dr X complains about the Council’s handling of child protection matters relating to his five children. Dr X says the Council has failed to allow him to actively engage in the process and he has not been given the chance to have his comments and views recorded. Dr X says the Council has failed to give him sufficient notice of scheduled meetings and copies of professional reports in advance of meetings so that he might properly consider and comment on these. Dr X feels the Council has sought to exclude him from the process and has not kept to commitments it has previously made to provide him with copies of missing reports and reimbursement of his expenses. Dr X says the Council’s interaction with him has caused significant distress and made him feel it is deliberately excluding him and his views.

Back to top

What I have not investigated

2. Some of the matters involving Mr X’s children are or have been considered by the courts. I have explained to Mr X that we cannot investigate anything the Council has done in relation to any court proceedings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have spoken with Dr X and considered the information he has provided in support of his concerns.
7. I have considered the information the Council has provided in response to my enquiries.
8. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legal and administrative guidance

10. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
11. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.
12. Anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to children’s social care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.
13. The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. The information gathering at this stage enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing. The assessment may result in:

• no further action;
• a decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs; or
• a decision to convene a strategy meeting.

14. Section 47 of the Act places a duty on agencies, but mainly the council and the police, to make “such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area”.
15. If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This might include making the child a ‘child in need’ (CiN) and implementing a safety plan.
16. The statutory guidance on child safeguarding, ‘Working together to safeguard children’, says after the ICPC, the council should convene a core group meeting within 10 working days. The purpose of core group is to:

• further develop the child protection plan;
• facilitate the in-depth assessment to inform decisions about the child’s welfare; and
• implement the child protection plan.

17. The core group is made up of key family members and professionals involved with the child and/or family.
18. Where a council is very concerned about a child’s safety or wellbeing it may decide to apply to the family courts to initiate care proceedings. Where a court accepts a council’s concerns it may award an interim care order which gives the council parental responsibility for the child and enables the council to decide where the child should live. Interim care orders are time limited and are commonly renewed until the court reaches a final decision on whether the child is at ongoing risk if returned home and whether a longer-term order should be made to ensure the safety of the child.

Background

19. This timeline of key events does not cover everything that has happened.
20. Dr X and his now ex-partner, Ms Y, share five children. In early July 2021, the Council received a safeguarding referral about these children which alleged physical abuse by Dr X. Ms Y separated from Dr X shortly after this and moved with the children out of the family home.
21. The Council held a strategy discussion a few days after receiving the safeguarding referral and decided to undertake child protection enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act. All five children were placed on Child in Need plans while this took place.
22. In late October 2021, the Council held a further strategy discussion following a referral about Dr X and Ms Y’s eldest child, Child B, being hospitalised. A unanimous decision was made to initiate the child protection process.
23. The Initial Child Protection Conference was held on 16 November 2021. A unanimous decision was made to place all five children on child protection plans. The Council commenced regular core group meetings to discuss and review actions within the child protection plans of all five children. Dr X was invited to participate in these meetings.
24. In early February 2022, the Council held a Review Child Protection Conference (RCPC) in which a unanimous decision was made for all five children to remain on child protection plans.
25. In early November 2022, Child B was readmitted to hospital following an overdose of painkillers. The Council convened a strategy discussion a week after this and decided to undertake further child protection enquiries.
26. At the end of November 2022, the Council applied to the court for an Interim Care Order for Child B and Interim Supervision Orders for their four siblings to remain in their mother’s care with supervised contact with Dr X. Child B became a Looked After Child.
27. At the time of the Council’s response to my enquiries, all five children remained on Child Protection Plans and under their mother’s care.

Analysis of Dr X’s complaints

The Council has not allowed him to actively engage in the process or given him chance to have his comments and views recorded

28. The Council has shared full and unredacted case records for the five children with me for the purposes of my investigation.
29. I have carefully examined these records and found that a large proportion of the notes made by the Council relate to its interaction with Dr X and his views about the process.
30. Since July 2021, the Council has convened 24 meetings or conferences in respect of Dr X and Ms Y’s children. These have included Initial and Review Child Protection Conferences and Core Group Meetings.
31. The Council’s records show Dr X was invited but unable to attend three Core Group Meetings out of 12 and one Review Child Protection Conference.
32. Within its responses to Dr X’s complaints, the Council has already apologised for arranging the missed Core Group Meetings at times when Dr X was unable to attend. The Council has since arranged for Dr X to meet with the allocated Social Worker at the end of September 2022 to go through the minutes of missed meetings and give Dr X the opportunity to make and have his comments recorded.
33. The action the Council has taken to address the concerns Dr X raised about missing some of the meetings about his children appear in line with the type of action we would recommend. I therefore do not consider further action is now required to remedy the injustice Dr X experienced.

The Council has failed to give Dr X sufficient notice of scheduled meetings and copies of professional reports in advance of meetings

34. The Council has provided copies of its complaint correspondence with Dr X, which includes this issue.
35. This element of Dr X’s complaint appears to relate to a Core Group Meeting held on 8 September 2022, which Dr X was unable to attend.
36. In response to Dr X’s complaint, the Council explained Dr X attended the previous Core Group Meeting on 21 July 2022, in which the Council advised it would be arranging the next Core Group Meeting in early September 2022. The Council did however also apologise to Dr X for the short notice given when the date of the meeting was fixed and that he could not attend.
37. The Council arranged for Dr X to meet with the allocated Social Worker to discuss and provide his comments on the meeting minutes at the end of September 2022.
38. In my view, the Council apology and meeting with Dr X were appropriate actions to remedy the injustice caused by him missing the meeting.
39. In terms of Dr X’s concerns about the sharing of professional reports, the Child Protection Conference Chair highlighted their concerns about this to relevant agencies on more than one occasion. The Council also explained to Dr X that each relevant agency involved with his children was ultimately responsible for ensuring it shared its respective reports with parents in a timely manner. The Council has since received confirmation from relevant agencies that they have shared their reports with Dr X and Ms Y.
40. While I understand Dr X’s frustration at not having professional reports in advance of scheduled meetings about his children, he has attended the majority of these meetings with the relevant agencies and appears to have actively participated in the discussions about his children.
41. Although the Council has no powers to compel other bodies to comply with their obligations to share information, I am satisfied the Council has taken the steps it could to highlight the issue raised by Dr X with other agencies. As a result, I do not consider further action is required by the Council in respect of this element of Dr X’s complaint.

The Council has sought to exclude Dr X from the process and not kept to previous commitments to provide copies of missing reports and reimbursement of expenses

42. The Council has apologised for the delay in providing Dr X with outstanding reports and reimbursement of his travel expenses since he approached us to escalate his complaint.
43. I am satisfied no further action is required as the Council has already taken the steps we would expect to resolve these issues and to remedy the injustice caused to Dr X.

The Council’s interaction with Dr X has caused him significant distress and made him feel the Council is deliberately excluding him and his views

44. There is no doubt the process of investigating safeguarding concerns about children are, by their very nature, extremely distressing and stressful for all those involved, not least the parents of the child(ren).
45. I have seen no evidence to show the Council has deliberately sought to exclude Dr X or his views from the process. He has been involved in the majority of the meetings the Council has convened about his children and from the records I have seen, he has actively participated and had his views recorded.
46. The Council has accepted and apologised that it has not been as timely as it should have in providing information to Dr X. I consider the steps it has taken to address this issue were proportionate and reasonable. Its complaint responses to Dr X have in my view been comprehensive and thorough.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I am satisfied the Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman